YATINDER KUMAR Vs. NEELKANTH DRUGS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order of the trial court dated 2.9.2014 by which the trial court while allowing the leave to defend application of the petitioner/defendant directed the petitioner/defendant to deposit the amounts with respect to 11 out of 27 invoices with respect to which the suit for recovery of Rs.6,74,314/- was filed.

(2.) The impugned order notes that petitioner/defendant pleaded that for 11 invoices he had made the payment in cash, but no proof was given with respect to payments made in cash and therefore, effectively the trial court holds that the defence of payment with respect to 11 invoices is a moonshine defence.

(3.) I completely agree with the conclusion of the trial court because in suits for recovery of monies under Order XXXVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) defences such as the present of allegedly having made payments in cash do not have any substance and hence courts are justified in directing deposit of the amount with respect to invoices which are allegedly said to have been paid in cash but which plea is a bald and an unsubstantiated plea. In fact, in my opinion, the trial court has been more than liberal to the petitioner because actually the suit could have been decreed so far as 11 invoices are concerned once the defence raised of payments in cash is a total moonshine defence and consequently, there was no requirement to grant leave to defend so far as the 11 invoices are concerned.